"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "

neversubmit:If the government has the power to record our conversations we should, as a society, be able to review all senate and congressional conversations via phone, email, and chat to monitor for criminal activity and back room deals. Our elected officials are working for us, therefore we should have complete insight into what they are doing behind closed doors. This holds true for any corporation, why not the US government.

They have nothing to fear if they havent done anything wrong..... right?

Corvus:No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

IdBeCrazyIf:Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

Right so "Needing a court ordered warrant" was just a small detail he left out on accident?

That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.

Alonjar:Corvus: No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

lol wut?

I keep saying it. His original allegation that government officials can just call up and listen to any conversation of a US citizen without a warrant turned out to be lie.

Corvus:That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.

Or perhaps the person breaking the story did

OMFG, press shaping information to fit a narrative? That like never happens!!!

Corvus:IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

Right so "Needing a court ordered warrant" was just a small detail he left out on accident?

That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.

IdBeCrazyIf:Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

Right the same press that after talking to everyone and looking at these documents retracted their stories of his original allegations.

Corvus:What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.

Because another source at the NSA told you so. What Snowden said was consistent with what has been known for over a decade. Not only is what Snowden said the truth, the knowledge of it should be so well known as to be a cliche.

Lexx:Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

Right so "Needing a court ordered warrant" was just a small detail he left out on accident?

That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.

mrshowrules:Corvus: What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.

Because another source at the NSA told you so. What Snowden said was consistent with what has been known for over a decade. Not only is what Snowden said the truth, the knowledge of it should be so well known as to be a cliche.

If you don't believe it, you are very very naive.

So which truth should I believe his original story or the new one? Because they contradict each other.

vudukungfu:neversubmit: "Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein ... the better off we all are," Snowden said.

He added that "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

In one of his final replies, Snowden attacked the "mainstream media" for its coverage, saying it "now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history."

"I have journalist friends in the media here in Britain who say the pressure on them to take the barbs off this story, discredit Snowden, promote official comments and generally avoid controversy is intolerable at times. I dread to think what it's like for responsible members of the press in America."

IdBeCrazyIf:NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

...and all it takes for the NSA to "get a warrant" is for an agent to decide he wants one. Warrants that are classified in this nature just get rubber stamped, because nobodys ever going to find out one way or the other.

neversubmit:"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein ... the better off we all are," Snowden said.

He added that "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

In one of his final replies, Snowden attacked the "mainstream media" for its coverage, saying it "now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history."

Dick Cheney being about the only politician that stands behind Obama on this ought to tell you all you need to know.

You where the chosen one, It was said you would destroy the sith, not become one.

IdBeCrazyIf:NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

You're saying he has no idea what he is talking about and not informed about things he is running to the press and pretending he knows about? Yep, you're right!!!

Alonjar:IdBeCrazyIf: NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

...and all it takes for the NSA to "get a warrant" is for an agent to decide he wants one. Warrants that are classified in this nature just get rubber stamped, because nobodys ever going to find out one way or the other.

Which still means he was lying. He lied.He said they didn't need a warrant that was a lie.

Alonjar:neversubmit: If the government has the power to record our conversations we should, as a society, be able to review all senate and congressional conversations via phone, email, and chat to monitor for criminal activity and back room deals. Our elected officials are working for us, therefore we should have complete insight into what they are doing behind closed doors. This holds true for any corporation, why not the US government.

They have nothing to fear if they havent done anything wrong..... right?

Yep! They have a lot to fear, have you seen what Father Land Security has been buying of late?

Corvus:I keep saying it. His original allegation that government officials can just call up and listen to any conversation of a US citizen without a warrant turned out to be lie.

You can keep saying it all you want. If you believe the NSA does not have the ability to listen to any phone conversation they want, you are a fool. This isnt even new.. some of us have known this for a very long time, for varying reasons. It is a fact that the NSA can and does intercept any and every wireless communication in the world that they choose to. The only thing thats new is the internet snooping... but dur, we already knew NSA has their own rooms in all the ISP backbones and we know they've been using ECHELON for 30+ years, so its not hard to connect the dots.

Alonjar:IdBeCrazyIf: NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

...and all it takes for the NSA to "get a warrant" is for an agent to decide he wants one. Warrants that are classified in this nature just get rubber stamped, because nobodys ever going to find out one way or the other.

Or maybe the requests are usually based on solid ground so they don't get rejected. That stat is misleading anyway because often they change the requests by limiting them so they can get accepted.

WhyteRaven74:Corvus: First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

I wouldn't be surprised if that little slide show of his is bogus. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have anything genuine.

That thought has occurred to me as well. The slideshow he has looks really amateurish, and he's said enough falsehoods to question nearly everything he's said. The phone companies themselves have said less than 0.1% of their customers' records have been requested by ALL law enforcement agencies, all the way from local police to the Feds. If that's true then the Feds are hardly misusing the authority that's been given them, and besides, all he's telling us is what we already knew back in 2006. People just have faulty memories (or maybe it's because of the political party who was in the WH at the time).

Alonjar:Corvus: I keep saying it. His original allegation that government officials can just call up and listen to any conversation of a US citizen without a warrant turned out to be lie.

You can keep saying it all you want. If you believe the NSA does not have the ability to listen to any phone conversation they want, you are a fool. This isnt even new.. some of us have known this for a very long time, for varying reasons. It is a fact that the NSA can and does intercept any and every wireless communication in the world that they choose to. The only thing thats new is the internet snooping... but dur, we already knew NSA has their own rooms in all the ISP backbones and we know they've been using ECHELON for 30+ years, so its not hard to connect the dots.

sure they have the ability. Didn't say they didn't. I think the government has had the ability to wire tap for a very long time now. However he still lied.

He still lied and leaked secret information. What the NSA has power to do does not change that.

Corvus:IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

Yes because the director of the NSA is such a top notch and trusted source of information

What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.

IdBeCrazyIf:Corvus: You are a pedophile. - That's not a lie right because for all I know you could be, right?

Well I've thought about going to the teaching profession

Cool I'll report it to the news and you will have no problem with it because for all I know it may be true and you seem to think that's not lying and being responsible to make baseless allegations about matters you have no idea about.

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "

Sounds about right.

The US government didn't declare him guilty of treason; certain loud mouthed assholes in Congress did.

Corvus:IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.

No he said with a word and command he can look into any conversation.

That word would very obviously come from a supervisor at the contractor, and now from released NSA information would come from a rubber stamp FISA warrant.

He didn't lie from his perspective...stop farking saying thatYes he did. He said that government officials can just listen into private conversations without a warrant. He didn't know that. But he said it just so people would believe it's true.

Saying something is true when you don't know if it is or not is still lying. He lied.

LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? If you are so sure of your statement that Snowden specifically said he didn't need a warrant to listen to a call, then perhaps you can provide the requisite citation? All Snowden has done is provide further information about the process, which he didn't go into explicit detail on initially. Are you going to claim he lied because he didn't specifically outline everything, thereby creating a "Lie of omission" which is only a pseudo-lie if it is not clarified in more detail later?

rnatalie:Actually, there's quite good whistleblower protections. Had he sumbitted his objections through channels first, he'd have some statutory protections. Running off to the press first, is NOT the way to handle almost anything, let alone classified information.

I'm sure that would have been a marvelous way to get disappeared before anyone found out anything.

washington-babylon:Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? If you are so sure of your statement that Snowden specifically said he didn't need a warrant to listen to a call, then perhaps you can provide the requisite citation? All Snowden has done is provide further information about the process, which he didn't go into explicit detail on initially. Are you going to claim he lied because he didn't specifically outline everything, thereby creating a "Lie of omission" which is only a pseudo-lie if it is not clarified in more detail later?

I linked above to what he said. Yes he said it in a way that was obviously misleading. Why do you think all the new reports (which I linked to above) say that he said it they could listen in without a warrant? They even asked him that point blank where he once again was misleading. He could of said "no" but he didn't.

If they need warrants (and according to you, he was not trying to imply they didn't) then what is the actual "whistle blowing" here?

How is he a "whistle blower" if his allegations are something that the government has already said they were doing?